sE searched 

final observations on the appeal OAMI/OHIM

Maastricht, 03/03/2010


ENDGAME DUTCH DISEASED LEGAL CULTURE:  Casus Europae:10yrs EU-battle of ideas

Activist judges are political legislaters protecting anathematic judicial imperialism while unreading facts

This teaching serves the greatest good and the broadest interest to learn to understand the workings of European IP rights and protection through proper, efficient, adequate and fair law enforcement.


OBSERVATION ONE + ENCLOSURE ONE I claim the Court’s rules are dead, so rulings are void & null

It is outrageously astonishing that Dell felt able to mislead the Dutch District Appellate Court. (DAC)

•The opposition is to be uphold entirely in it’s original context, because Enclosure One, Dell’s own sub-

mission of march 13, 2003 inherently and inclusively proofs the normal initial use of Trademarker ♦E


and   (1)    prof. mr. T.M. Kolle  is a pervert who misrepresented my legal interests and abused his

               authority to distort and ‘sizzle’ my case to the advantage and further purpose of Dell; and

and   (2)    genuine motive to seek proof of Tychon’s bad faith registration and non-usus of his                                                         

               Trademarker ♦E had no legal basis or ligitimate interest for litigation before the Dutch Court


I therefore claim Trademark terror by Dell like before, followed by judicial crime by the Appellate Court, helped by structural lawyer deceit by Mister Kolle, or/and under his responsibility. Please read on if this is already not sufficient ground for disregarding/rejecting the DAC’s ruling by whatever means the Boards of Appeal or President of OAMI can think of and further steps to be taken, can come up with.


Dell always forgot to register the distinctive ‘global’ (circle) and ‘dot’ (internet) elements and focused on their canted ‘E’ instead which they wrongfully claim as the canted ‘E’.

To clarify my original position once again, I repeat from my Oposition Submission (quoted by Dell, in their observations in reply to the opponent’s submission for opposition (‘oroso’) -4.(c) p.10:

Dell’s only objective was pushing a possible merger off the market which culminated in a astonishing act: purposely misleading the public by virtually copying my Trademarke(er) ...and confusing it’s own present and future clients/consumers in the same time. So, the trail of procedure tricks is now tracked.

In accordance with the communication of the Registry & request for extension, dated 08/01/2010,

I herewith submit the opponent’s final obeservations in reply to the Dutch District

Appeal Court Ruling of 14 July 2009 and the applicant’s submission of 23 dec 2009.






The opposition is to be uphold for the following reasons:



Only the opponent in person as the creator knows howE works as a wordmarker!


 1.     Spurious ridicule and Trademark terror, indeed warrant serious comparison and genuine comment of given and new evidence-based facts. Compare with quote from oroso 5. Conclusion of observations on p10.:  “The applicant submits that with CMT application number 1564061 it has sought to registrer nothing more than a variant of a sign (the Dell canted E) for which it has over many years built up a considerable reputation and notoriety, and which would conjure up in the mind of the public the actual origin of computer hardware and computer related goods”.

Dell louds it’s own mark, the canted E-sign, as “so well known and so notorious, that there is no danger that the public would confuse the opposing mark with the mark appled for..”  Dell misleads: “Relevant territory” as indicated: “worldwide (meaning the US!) and European basis”... in that  sequence! though Europe is not yet part of the world! Another Dell enclosure 7 (oroso p037, 9.) assures the world

that “Dell’s ‘canted E’ mark, in its various forms (!?), is distinctive and famous and Dell owns valid, strong and enforcable rights in its ‘Canted E’ mark.” The latter submission of a final judgement from the US District Court, Northern District of Georgia. Atlanta Division ridicules Dell’s intimidating and misleading attempts to manipulate the Board of Appeal’s opinion, because the US is in the context of European IP litigation, protection and enforcement completely irrelevant territory


Real innovation, progress and prosperity should not be obstructed by national courts!


 2.     The exact basis and direction of the Opposition was recognised and particularised by OAMI:

Industry-politics’ dominance and related dishonesty infecting lawmakers and activist judges alike, proved to be relevant legal issues during the proceedings in an effort by OAMI to promote fair compe- tition as the integrating and harmonizing business of the Office. The well-founded allegations of disho- nesty and Trademark terror naturally evolved into the foreseen reality during the integrated proceedings

for everyone to recognise, experience and use as a basis for fundamental re-education. Therefore I claim in good fath, that the relevance of the Benelux as the appropriate territory to defend claimed world

wide reputation of the opposed mark as intrinsicly and extremely doubtful and making the purpose of the proceedings before the DAC a clear objective with the sole purpose to destroy a very intelligent, highly innovative and ingenious ideogram and exclude it from fair competition. So, ligitimate interest to protect it’s widely known and secured ‘global Trademark’ in the Netherlands is far from obvious. 

In fact, it is astonishing indeed that the aplicant felt able to do so.


Biased legal opinion and intersests within the Dutch legal system obscuring the truth:


The following contention of the Councilor-Commissioner, Bart van Lierop, of the Dutch District Appellate Court in The Hague indicates the total lack of justices’ genuine motive to enhance and sustain judicial impartiality: During a private conversation in his city of residence, Maastricht, Mister van Lierop asserted me: “It will take another 30 years of fighting to reach your goals.”

So, no wonder that the ‘sizzle’ paradigm of silenced justice and bribed brains practices intelligence abstination: “no-trial” evidence without newly discovered defining (f)acts guaranteeing no access to the courts’ judges and the self-serving economic-political comparison of interests. No wonder this spurious trial is not based on genuine motive and fair comparison of evidence-based new and additional facts to prove the case and thus prevent the public from confusing two distinct marks. The opponent observes the structural toxic contradictions contained in the integrated observation-submissions and Court files that were never detected by his lawyer, due to miscommunication and ICTerror between the parties.


Proof of Perversion and P3-crime




Not only did Dell itself legally proof normal use of the ♦E marker, as demonstrated in Observation One

(production 2) as of March 13, 2003, but legal new and additional proof of sufficiently substantiated use was timeley submitted by my next lawyer mr. J.L.J.E. Koster of Adelmeijer Hoyng Advocaten, Maastricht, for the Court session of 31 januari 2008 and subsequently brushed off the table bij the Appeal Court in the Hague. Compare with   PRODUCTION 1.

This submission showed structural lawyer deceit by prof. mr. T.M. Kolle and adequately proved use of  the mark in the relevan period, following independent investigations and review of Casus Europae by the outside specialists kloet en van de merwe architekten, namely right at the beginning of that period:

just a few weeks after installment of the website an offer of DM 4000 was received for the domainname by Stefan Schuster of Germany, on June 9 2000!  Compare with Marco Dieleman’s statement of Januari 28, 2008 who registered about 1200 domainnames he put up

for sale, on my behalf on which in turn was served free of charge by service-provider and NOT VirtualOve as widely submitted, argued, discussed and misunderstood.

So this action is in the broadest interest of learning to understand the constricted European lawmaking process and systemic lack of harmonization, integration, cooperation inviting crooked IP laws, rights and protection and cursed internatiol law development and enforcement, let alone the unity of spirits and peoples and the land.



POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT                                       


OAMI President Wubo de Boer’s conviction has always been based on the ideas of sharing and cooperation insofar I know. Once he told me in a private conversation that he considers easy money to be the world’s curse. That was back in 2004. How right he was as we now see! He thought I made-up the sharindex up on the spot, but it was already registered at the time. I know he was impressed, and rightly so. I’m still thankfull for his teaching and appreciate why he preferes OAMI to OHIM! U know Y?

“Our goal is to make IP protection both affordable and accessible and this is particularly important for smaller companies making their way in the international market and striving to get attention in the global economy,” is his most recent adagium!


Lord Mogg, chair of the OAMI Management Board en head of the Steering Commission of the Cooperation Fund apparently is on the same track: “OAMI working together with National Offices on concrete projects can deliver better services to users.

These projects willmake life easier for them, whether they chose the national route for IP protection, or come to us at OAMI.”


The common goal and principle of the Cooperation Fund is to “make life easier for users by modernisation, simplification and harmonization” - by unveiling the masquerade?

In this context, I can’t withhold you my late father’s view when he visited heavy-industry complexes in Stuttgart, Germany as a young engineer in 1937, especially important as he would later become the architect of Europe’s natural gas distribution network*), being the first director of the biggest public-private partnership in the world defining the globe’s future energy-agenda that now obscures global disaster, aggression, excess, pollution, waste, abuse, arrogance, wars, distortion, informationterror, communication chimera, judicial & diplomatic crime and democratic deceit due to parliamentary deficit: “Industrial advice and promotion should focus on the interests of the enduser.”

Ir. N.H.M. Tychon. Compare “La Condition Americaine” on

The seizure of the globalization trend*) in 1963 was reveiled to me after Dell’s prompt

outrageous actions and behaviour linked to the common industrial aggression that is in

everybody’s mind but only plays a hidden role nobody can explain.

                                                                                                                                         I I explain, so I am.






First thing one should ask is how on earth can you win a Trademark conflict on a European level and later lose the battle in your homeland without the security of speaking for yourself before the bench? The Dutch judicial system proves to be even more fascist than the American

everybody hates. Following Dell’s Trademark terror I got involved with big-time budget-bonus crime, but at least I was the last speaker/witness during the Enron trial and now know how to pin down emminent criminals. Compare with the latest succes with the UN climate chief as documented on  All thanks to Dell’s misconduct! Or google Exxon-Shell videos


The workings of the website are explained by it’s creator Oscar Fischer of Maastricht and proved with  PRODUCTION 2  containing the screenshots gratefully delivered and submitted by Dell that took the shots on June 19, 2002 plus the updated version of the website as uncovered by office kloet en van de merwe architecten, where outside investigator ir. Bram Stoeken from their Delft offices forced an opening with my former registrant and  ex-compagnon Marco Dieleman, operating as Team A in connection with researchers Marc Hendriks and Jhr. Michel van der Maesen de Sombreff, comprising Team B and working from their Maastricht offices, towards the end of the proceedings just before the DAC session after repeated misunderstandings with my lawyers prof. mr. T.M. Kolle and mr. Selale Dogan of Heitman von Meding, Amsterdam, who proved to be extreme professionals in hiding their total lack of skill. Please compare with  PRODUCTION 3  which shows for example one of

their most ignorant and incomprehensible handling of the matter entrusted to them: dot.e-world

any child can tell you this makes no sense but nonsense. Note that Kolle -lectures at the VU university

in Amsterdam: Trademark law, Copyright, Patent law, Medialaw, Litigation and Negotiation- is a crook!

He persinttantly refused to explain the dot.e-world notation practised under his authority by Selale Dogan who worked on the case at his office and was engaged without even a call for confirmation or

further discussion. I hired a ‘reknown’ professor and not a clerk. I had to let that go, because distrust wasn’t an issue to start with in my perception of matters. He never unearthed the sufficiently substanti-

ated  legal new and additional proof of (f)actual, initial and normal use of the Trademarker E. Further

explanation of factual evidence, ciscumstances and evolvements was finally provided by Marco Diele-

man, who was never contacted by Kolle !! These facts would reverse and pervert the whole sequence of the procedure and reveal previous efforts to prove normal use, to be completely worthless and mis-

leading, apart from indicating operating by Kolle in bad faith, additional suspicion towards co-operating

with Dell, like events at the Office and the UK Patent Office had already proved. My mother warned me

repeatedly, but what could I have done. Once you have disbursed €65,000 you’re stuck.

Mind you, the initial estimation by prof. Kolle was 8-10 hours - €300/h

Prof. mr. T.M. Kolle stands accused of conspiring with counterparties, operating sizzle strategies and

practising the endless discoveries paradigm (ICTeror) in order to hide and/or circumvent the original complaint of Trademark terror by Dell, which eventually also proved to be facilitated by the following judges of the Appellate Court in The Hague: Mrs. J.C. Fasseur-van Santen, A.D. Kiers-Becking and

G.J. Heevel. Remind what the Court’s Councilor-Comissioner said to me personally: “You will have to

fight for another 30 years to reach your goal.”




False assignment of the appeal:

“As the facts that the District Court designated as established facts in legal grounds 2.1 to 2.7 of the challenged judgement have not been contested, the Court of Appeal will also use these

Facts as its basis.


The evidence-based facts were contested as showed above but disregarded by the Court of Appeal for obvious reasons: for example disclosure of state-corporate crime and judicial disorder. Not a single judge can adequately explain his ruling or judgement anymore. Therefore, the highest judge is the most responsible individual for global disaster. Like in the Netherlands where the commission Davids ‘investigated’ the rootcause for Dutch willingness to take part in the Coalition of the Willing, Davids disregarded my public comment about the Dutch Disease and it’s rootcause; easy money and cheap resources –natural gas, a well-known subject during international energy-conferences, like the one I took part in in Phnom-Penh two years ago, as documented on my webportal.

• For better understanding I request that the full content of my portal be included in these observations

that evolved during the imminent industrial aggression and terror I experienced in my conflict with Dell.

Court of Appeal ruling in the name of the Queen, 14 July 2009


     DACRuling under 3.:

“Dell moved for cancellation of Tychon’s lettermark/wordmarker which was filed on 11 February 2000 and registered under number 659 406, claiming that this mark has been filed in bad faith, and moved for revocation of the trademark right persuant to Article 14C (1) in conjunction with Article 5(2)(a)BTA (old), claiming that no genuine use has been made of the mark for five years.”


   1• The offer of DM 4.000 by Stefan Schuster of on June 9 2000, just a week after the creation of the catching name EUTRAX for tracking goods and services within the EU on May

29, 2000, under the banner of the E sign on the website (linked with service-provider who still operates for it’s own account) proves legal grounds for appeal as assessed by the CAD to be void and null.  Compare PRODUCTION 1


     The DACRuling assumes under 6.:

“That there is ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark where it is used in accordance with its essential function,                           which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services for which it is registered, in oder to create

or preserve an outlet for those goods or services; genuine use does not include token use for the sole purpose of preserving the rights conferred by the mark. When assesing whether use of themark is genuine, all he facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial use of the mark is real in the course of trade must

be taken into account, particularly whether suchh use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector involved to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods and services protected by the mark, the nature of those

goods or services, the characteristics of the market and the scale and fequency of use of the mark. When it serves

a real comercial purpose, in the circumstances cited above, even minimal use of the mark or use by only a single importer in the Member State involved can be sufficient to establish genuine use within the meaning of the Directive”

(legal ground 27 La Mer) (DACRuling (6.))


   2• Although there was a second offer on another domain name from an Israeli company which could not be traced back, the above directive indicates clearly that the offer of Stefan Schuster constitutes legal and genuine use of the mark and implicitly as a trademarking markermaker!



     DACRuling under 7.:

“Given that  the pleading notes in the first instance (point 7), Dell explicitely submitted that the date of

Registration of the subject mark (also) is 11 february 2000, Tychon did not challenge this and Tychon also assumes that the term of use runs to February 2005, the Court of Apeal willassume this as its basis”.


   3• Tychon never doubted nor challenged the relevant period, because Tychon had good faith

in his lawyer in bringing the hidden truth to the surface. As a clear thinker, Tychon counted onevidence-based ligitimate facts that constituted his highly innovative enterprise. As the still

new and additional facts and enclosure/productions prove, the assumption of the Appeal Court

again is of no value whatsoever: just nil and none. Compare PRODUCTION 1 & 3


     DACRuling under 8.

“Tychon posits that his mark is or has been used since 2000 or 2002 either by him or with his consent

on the websites and, since December 2004 on the website and

since February 2005 on the website  Dell challenged the alledged use and/or challenged

that the alleged use constitutes genuine use in the sense of Article 2.26(2))a) BCIP.”


   4• It’s an insult and supicion-like move: Tychon never traded dildo’s, vibrators, lingerie or lubricants. Dell again demonstrates it’s ludicrious lack of efficiency and hollow phantasies. was a free service provider on the web, suggested by Oscar Fischer who design-

ed the website to test-drive his own creation  Tychon had his E marker coupled with all the domain names on this site that was automatically linked to  It was probably not realised, but if so, certainly not considered to be a business disadvantage in that iniial stage of development of the business-method being tested.  Compare ALL PRODUCTIONS  + 2esp.






     DACRuling under 9.

Observing all content under 9. I note: Tychon never owned nor used as an

intermediate domain to serve his business-method. “A list of domain names he allegedly offered via the

website” Tychon notes that the workings of  the website would implicate oral hea-

rings to explain; because of its complexity, novelty and highly innovative character in its very first experimental phase. Explanation would involve the sequences of the alphabethic arrangement of

names by Oscar fischer who preferred to work on his own, designing my website being the type of a

dedicated nerd. I request inquieries if necessary for wider understanding and proof off actual operation

of the said website and all the connections with people from and my registrant Marco Dieleman.     • Note that screenshot “A” of PRODUCTION 2 is centered on by Dell

itself and submitted as stated before with oroso and accompagned by a letter (by post and e-mail)from

Dr. Andreas Renck of Lovells, Alicante, the man who coordinated so well with Marcel Boulogne, head

of the Office’s Oposition Division (as documented and available for further proof), intimidating and threatening Tychon as follows: (quote)


...“Furthermore, we notice that you are using at the end (of one of my letters to Dr. Renck) “sincerely

Yours, dot-E The Dellaware Company and I understand that you herewith refer to our client.

This again will show towards a court in the Benelux (letter of 19 July, 2002!!) your clear behaviour to

take advantage of the fame of our client’s rights to the canted E and the name Dell. We have already

gathered further information and material about such use. All this will certainly be valuable in court proceedings in the Benelux and for the question how much you will have to pay damages to our client.

Still, our client is willing to give you a last chance to respond to our request and the declaration submit-

ted to you earlier. We now expect a signed copy of said declaration including the declaration towards

 the Benelux Trade Mark Office, WIPO and the OHIM until 05 September 2002. If we do not receive

the signed copy, the declaration and later a copy of its original until said date, we will initiate cancella-

tion and infringement proceedings in the Benelux. Yours sincerely, Dr. Andreas Renck

Page mailing to a friend temporary disabled